Logical Questions And Good Points To Ponder
I think it IS logical. Jah allows the coruption IN the JW org the same as he allows others wrongs to occure in this present imperfect age..such as allowing Bush to be president and allowing his war to continue. These wrongs, both Bush, the war, and the injustices of the JW organization will be resolved during Jesus Christ 1,000 rein. I am not sugesting we just wait on on the org to correct matters either, ovbiously my reply to this would be HELL NO.
We do each individually go on and do what we think is just and right regardless of what the JW org does or does not, and sure, we hope that individuals with in the org, would soften their harden hearts and heads and choose to change on their own...Just as we, each have done.
We can express our disagreeement to their committed injustices, such as on this site, your own sites, in magazines, in books or even on the media, in hopes that others might not join in their ignornace and harming others. But we are not trying to chance or correct "The organization" from the INSIDE.
This JW Reform site has some good quotes..if we reconstuct them in new light..they are very helpful...
"There are many Jehovah's Witnesses, who, although they see the problems in the organization, are convinced that the correct course of action is to let matters lie. They talk about "waiting on Jehovah" to handle matters, leaving things in his hands.Each and every day that passes, there are people in Jehovah's organization who are being mistreated in some way as a result of the policies put in place by the Governing Body. Are we to walk by the bleeding man on the side of the road and not pay him any attention?
" Yes, matters will be handled in God's time, and we all know that God's kingdom will solve all of humankind's problems. But that doesn't mean we live our lives in such a way that we help neither ourselves nor anyone else because we are waiting for God to correct things.
When people say they are "waiting on Jehovah," what is it exactly that they are waiting for? It seems to mean more that they are waiting on the Governing Body, rather than waiting on Jehovah.
And here is one of the main errors of the JW organization...This error we were taught that The Governing Body of imperfect men/ "The Organization" and Jah are basically the same thing. The Governing Body admits no inspiration, so even they acknowledge that Jehovah will not give them a special revelation. The biblical examples make it clear that God speaks to people in many ways and from many sources, some of them even unlikely."
(gasp!) Maybe even through this 'worldy' Progressives site! :0
"It has become quite clear that those in authority in this organization will not act to right the wrong policies that were put in place by their predecessors. They have even added to these wrongs. We do not feel the necessary changes called for here will be made voluntarily by those in power."
"The New World Translation muffles the power of this scripture by limiting the right to readjust someone to only those having "spiritual qualifications." Witnesses are taught that these qualifications belong solely to those appointed by the Watchtower."
Jesus said he would leave us a "HELPER", and this helper was explained as Holy Spirit...NOT..an 'Organization' of imperfect men...
"Whether they listen or not is up to them. We will leave that part up to God. But if any good comes of this movement, if even one person's life is helped, then it will have been worth it."
There are many logical reasons WHY the idea of this idea of reform from withIn the JW org will never work. One reason is because of the ovbious fact that the JW org is fundamental in structure, after all the whole main core of the JW organization Is "The 'Organization," and that the JW organization is the channel to Jehovah even before the Christ.
The mere concept or belief that Jehovah 'required's, 'needs', or does opperate and always HAS THOUGH an authoritive board of imperfect men sets up a religion that is of a religious Fundamentalist nature rather than Progressive, Liberal or even Moderate. The same can be said the Roman Catholic church and it's structural belief that the whole church is built on, this belief that Pope and the Vatican, their own collection of imperfect men, are THEE cornerstone upon which Christ build his church. (see below links)
Another example, the Southern Baptist Convention. It too is a board of imperfect men who speaks for and on behalf of all who indentify themselves as "Southern Baptists," whether those in BSC agree with this or not. The only true way a Southern Baptist can indentify him or herself from the views that the Southern Baptist Convention states, is to disconnect their indenity with Southern Baptist. (see below links)
MODERATES FIGHT TO DEFEAT FUNDAMENTALISTS RULERSHIP..BUT LOOSE
There is a sense of irony in all of the conflict since all Southern Baptists would be viewed as conservative by those outside the tradition. From the late 1970s forward, they came to veiw themselves as fundamentalists and moderates (those against the fundamentalists). Doctrinally they were not terribly different. But the moderates were vastly different in their social justice issues of equality.Dividing the two sides was also the issue of pastoral authority. The fundamentalists believed in a pattern of authority where a husband has authority over his wife and a pastor over his church. Due to this hierarchy fundamentalists saw it inappropriate for a woman to be ordained as a pastor. The moderates thought any believer should have a right to be an ordained pastor.
The two sides also tended to differ on various social and political issues as well. Fundamentalists were not supportive issues such the Equal Rights Amendment. The fundamentalists strongly believed in the issues they took a stand on and would fight diligently to see these issues implemented in the SBC. On the other side the moderates did not have anywhere close to a unanimous decision on any of these political or social issues.
The two sides differed dramatically on what they believed to be important about being a Baptist. The key for the fundamentalists was that they needed a way to get their views and ideas into the SBC, which was dominated by the moderate people who were leading the SBC in a direction, which they didn't want to go.
This controversy began to unfold within the Southern Baptist Convention during the late 1970's and continued to dominate the denomination's attention for the balance of the century.
As fundamentalists rapidly took control of the SBC they began making the necessary changes they deemed appropriate. In 1984, a resolution was passed at the convention in Kansas City, which excluded women from pastoral roles because the woman was first in the Edenic fall. By 1985, the fundamentalists had been appointing trustees for boards who were proven to be inerrantists to institute their policies. The fundamentalists were convinced that agencies were not being governed under biblical principals and they wanted the right people in office to ensure biblical principles would be applied. 24 .
For years and years the moderates continued to fight against the fundamentalists only to lose virtually every time on every issue. One can only be left to wonder how and why were the fundamentalists so successful in their endeavors to control the Southern Baptist Convention.
FUNDAMENTALISTS GATHER THE MOST LISTENERS BECAUSE THEIR SPEAKERS ARE LOUDER & THUS SEEM MORE POWERFUL
Despite the efforts of the moderates to combat the takeover by the fundamentalists they lost the battle for several reasons.The fundamentalists were simply more powerful and motivating speakers. They had the ability to move crowds and persuade huge churches to listen to what they had to say. It was partly this reason that allowed Pressler and Patterson to gather the large crowds of messengers necessary to help them elect presidents.
The inability of the moderates to gather support for their cause also contributed to a fundamentalist victory. The moderates could not gather enough support because only the older people who had dedicated their lives to the SBC were willing to take on the fight. Younger people simply were not willing to dedicate their lives to a fight with the fundamentalists. Still, a schism within the SBC is probably not likely. A major reason for this is the high degree of autonomy that each local congregation maintains. Ministers, and their congregations may disagree with the leadership direction of the SBC, but what happens at the national level has little, if any, affect them.
Thus, if churches feel that the convention is irrelevant to them, there is little initiative to leave. In the late 1980's Nany Ammerman, the leading scholar of Southern Baptists conducted a study and concluded that most churches anticipated no changes at all in their church despite the fundamentalist takeover. If people today still feel that they and their church are autonomous from the national convention then a schism is very unlikely to occur.
The movie, "Brides of Christ," Traces a period of radical change within the Catholic church, instigated by the Pope and the Vatican, during the 1960s and 70s, and the effects it had on one (fictional) convent of nuns in Australia. Exquisite, sharply perceptive miniseries is about Catholics, but any Progressive minded or Moderate minded Christian who has to deal with the obstacles of far right rigid religious thinking will relate to the struggles that these two main nun characters face.
Certainly as an educational piece for those who are wondering what goes on inside convents, traditionally very secluded, reclusive places of worship. Each of the six episodes focuses on one major character, and issues raised include Catholic views on divorce, birth controll, versus the wider world-views on these subjects which were beginning to take shape during the social revolution of the times; other, less `worldly' (but no less important, for the participants) issues include the struggle between old-school (fundamentalists) nuns, for whom the lifestyle was all about studying and reliving archaic practices, and the new wave of younger and more Progressive minded Catholics, who wanted the church to become more relevant to the changing society.
Now wait a minute, you may say, are you telling me I can't be a Witnesses of Jehovah and voice that I don't agree with the organization's opinions or views? Or that one can not be Catholic and voice a disagreement with the Pope? Most asurely, there ARE Progressive minded 'individuals' withIN the JW organization, as well as withIN the Catholic church and even the Southern Baptist, but their Progressive or even moderate views will never been appreciated or acknoweldged withIn these fundamental-based groups.
People have tried. Moderates and Progressives withIN Southern Baptists tried to stop the Southern Baptists Convention from turning into the rigid and intolerant source it is today. You can read about it on the linkls below. During the 60's an attempt was made to modernized the Catholic Church , and this was called the creation of Vactin II. Some small changes were made, but look, here were are some 30-some years later, and can priests marry? Can women preach? Is birth controll encouraged? You can learn alot about this by renting the series, Brides of Christ.
Yet, there are liberal Catholic Church and there are Progressive Baptists who simply do not add the title, "Southern" to their churches. There ARE Progressive minded Christians for Jah, they just are not in the JW organization...It's just there is no offical Progressive JW alternative Church..that we know of.
Brides of Christ
Brother Sun,Sister Moon, The Story of Saint Francis
Southern Baptist Struggle For Reform
Back To Main Page
