THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELDER ARRANGEMENT WAS A BLESSING — THE CREATION OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAS BEEN A DISASTER (PART I)

CHRISTIAN FREEDOM BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE GOVERNING BODY

The elder arrangement implemented in 1972 was a blessing for three decades, as it brought Christian freedom to the Witnesses. The Governing Body was created in 1971. While it restricted Christian freedom in some areas in the 20th century, it was first in the 21st century that Christian freedom was taken away, when the members of the Governing Body gave themselves all power over doctrines, property, and money.

Jehovah’s Witnesses today is a dictatorial organization with all power concentrated at the top. But still, there are many elders in the organization who are a blessing for individual Witnesses.

The prophet Isaiah wrote in chapter 33 and verse 22:

For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Statute-giver, Jehovah is our king. He himself will save us.

In ancient Israel, Jehovah had given the laws through Moses, and the king, the judges, and the elders in the city gate represented Jehovah as judges.

In democratic nations today, the three branches are separated. There is one government, one national assembly that makes the laws, and one judicial branch with the courts. In dictatorial nations, the three branches usually exist. But one person or a group of persons has unlimited power, and the three branches are not independent institutions. But they are dictated by the ruler or the rulers.

Jehovah God was the judge, the lawgiver, and the king of the Christian congregations in the first century CE, and the same is true with the Christian congregations in our time. However, there is a great difference between the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 21st century and the first Christian congregations in the first century CE.

This is implied by the use of tenses in the heading of this article. The use of past tense refers the action to the past and shows that the action does not include the present, and the use of perfect refers to the action from its beginning to the present.

The work of the Governing Body from its beginning in 1971 and to the present has been a disaster. But the implementation of the elder arrangement in 1972 was a blessing for many years. But in 1976, the members of the Governing Body began transferring power from the bodies of elders to themselves, and this has continued into the 21st century. But for most of the 20th century, the bodies of elders remained a blessing. In the 21st century, the members of the Governing Body gave themselves unlimited power, and the bodies of elders have had little independent power. But they function in the same way as institutions in countries with dictators. However, in the 21st century, there are many individual elders who are a blessing to Witnesses in their congregations.

THERE WAS NO GOVERNING BODY IN THE FIRST CENTURY CE

There are two basic reasons why the Governing Body has been a disaster: 1) The creation of the Governing Body has no basis in the Bible, and 2) the application of the power of the Governing Body has, since its creation, ruined the lives of tens of thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Chapter 3 in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition, shows clearly that the claim that there was a governing body in the first century CE, and therefore there likewise must be a governing body in our time, has no basis. In this discussion, I will give a few examples of the faulty reasoning of Governing Body members, in light of some wise words in an article on disfellowshipping in The Watchtower of August 1. 1974, page 472:

Holding to the Scriptures, neither minimizing what they say nor reading into them something they do not say, will enable us to keep a balanced view toward disfellowshipped ones.

These are points that cover all sides of the Christian life. Christian leaders and everyone else should fully accept what the words of the Bible say and not add or subtract anything from them. In light of this important principle, I will discuss some arguments made by the present Governing Body in the margin of the Online NWT13 with references. Below is an excerpt from the text describing the meeting in Jerusalem in 49 CE, where circumcision was discussed. Acts 15:2, 22-29 says:

²  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue…

²²  Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation, decided to send chosen men from among them to Antioch, along with Paul and Barʹna·bas; they sent Judas who was called Barʹsab·bas and Silas, who were leading men among the brothers. ²³  They wrote this and sent it through them: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! ²⁴  Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions, ²⁵  we have come to a unanimous decision to choose men to send to you together with our beloved Barʹna·bas and Paul, ²⁶  men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. ²⁸ For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: ²⁹  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Let us now look at the arguments in the margin of these verses that are expressed by the present members of the Governing Body as a study note to Acts 15:2:

Elders: Lit., “older men.” Here the Greek term pre·sbyʹte·ros to those who held a position of responsibility in the early Christian congregation. The elders of the Jerusalem congregation are mentioned together with the apostles as the ones to whom Paul, Barnabas, and some other brothers from Syrian Antioch went in order to get the matter of circumcision settled. So just as some elders served in fleshly Israel on a national level, these elders together with the apostles formed a governing body for all the Christian congregations in the first century C.E. This indicates that the original group serving as a governing body, the 12 apostles had now been enlarged—Ac 1:21,22, 26; see study notes on Mt 16:21; Ac 11:30. (Bold script in the original)

The claim is that the words of verse 2 and the account of the discussions show that “these elders, together with the apostles, formed a governing body for all the Christian congregations in the first century C.E.” This is a clear example of the violation of the principle expressed in The Watchtower of 1974 of “nor reading into them [the Scriptures] something they do not say.” The words about a governing body are constructed by the present Governing Body without any Scriptural basis whatsoever.

We note that the decision by the apostles and the elders was inspired by holy spirit, so it cannot be argued that the apostles and the elders had the power to make binding laws for other Christians. We also note that the decision to send some men to Antioch was made by “the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation.” If it is argued that the fact that the apostles and the elders made a decision together shows that they were a governing body, the argument can be made that “the whole congregation” was a part of the governing body because they were included in the decision to send men to Antioch.

The claim in the marginal note is that the apostles of the elders formed a governing body for all the congregations. Against this claim is the fact that only in Acts chapter 15 are the apostles and the elders mentioned together. This cannot be viewed as negative evidence that has no weight, because of the account in chapter 21 about Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. Acts 21:18, 19 says:

¹⁷ When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. ¹⁸ But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. ¹⁹ And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry.

The visit of Paul evidently occurred in the year 56, seven years after the meeting in Jerusalem. If there was a governing body consisting of the apostles and the elders, it would be natural for Paul to give a detailed account before it. But he only met James and the elders. The present Governing Body sees a problem here as well, and they try to explain away this problem by their study note to Acts 21:18:

And all the elders: See study notes on Ac 15:2; 16:4. None of the apostles are mentioned in connection with this meeting that took place in 56 C.E. The Bible does not explain why. However, regarding the time leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction, the historian Eusebius (born about 260 B.C.). said: “the remaining apostles, in constant danger from murderous plots, were driven out of Judea. But to teach their message they travelled to every land in the power of Christ.” (Eusebius’, book III, V, v. 2) Although Eusebius’ words are not part of the inspired record, they do harmonize with what the Bible says. For example, by 62 C.E., Peter was in Babylon—far from Jerusalem. (1Pe 5:13) However, James the brother of Jesus was still in Jerusalem, likely presiding at this meeting when “all elders were present” with Paul. (Bold script in the original)

These comments are strange. The words of Eusebius do “not harmonize with what the Bible says,” because Acts does not say that there was a governing body. But the Watchtower writer evidently presumes the existence of a governing body, and Eusebius’s words may explain why the apostles were not mentioned in connection with Paul’s visit. But we may ask: if there was persecution, why would only the apostles, not James and the elders, be driven from Jerusalem? The conclusion is that Paul meeting only the elders, not the apostles, argues against the view that there was a governing body of the apostles and the elders in 56 CE.

Paul visited Jerusalem different times, and his words about these visits in his letter to the Galatians question the existence of a governing body as well. Galatians 1:15-19; 2:1, 2, 6-10 say:

¹⁵  But when God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his undeserved kindness, thought good ¹⁶ to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. ¹⁸ Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. ¹⁹ But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

¹ Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. ²  I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain…

⁶ But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. ⁷ On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised—⁸ for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations—⁹  and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. ¹⁰ They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do.

Three years after his trip to Arabia and his return to Damascus, Paul went up to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18). This must have been around the year 36 CE, and it is too early to speak of a governing body, according to the Governing Body. If Paul’s conversion occurred in 36 CE, 14 years after that would be the year 49 CE, and in this year, he went up to Jerusalem together with Barnabas in connection with the circumcision issue. We do not find any mention of a governing body in Paul’s words. On the contrary, his words suggest that there was no governing body. The study note of Galatians 2:7 says:

Just as Peter: Paul here shows that those taking the lead in the congregation cooperated with one another. (See study note on Ga 2:9.) The governing body in Jerusalem agreed that Paul had been entrusted with a ministry focusing on non-Jews, while Peter’s focus was primarily on preaching to the Jews. (Bold script in the original)

This note is misleading because no governing body is mentioned. Nothing in the text suggests a collective group of leaders (the governing body). In 2:8, Paul says that “the one [Jesus Christ] who empowered Peter for an apostleship” also “empowered me for those who are of the nations.” Paul continues to show that James, Kephas, and John “recognized the undeserved kindness that Paul was given,” and they showed this by “giving Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, i.e., they gave Paul and Barnabas their support. The claim that “the governing body in Jerusalem agreed that Paul had been entrusted with a ministry focusing on non-Jews” is utterly false.

Paul’s words in Galatians 2:6 also speak against a governing body. The verb in the first part of the verse is dokeō, and its meaning is “think, imagine, suppose, presume, seem, appear” according to Mounce. The verb is present active participle, which means that the action or state continues. Literally, the first part of the verse says: “As for those being viewed as something,” and the second part of the verse speaks of “those outstanding men.” “Who were they? The indices of the Watchtower literature back to 1930 do not answer this question. But because the context is the meeting in Jerusalem in 49 CE, it is logical that “the outstanding men” refer to persons who were present at this meeting.

If the apostles and the elders at the meeting in Jerusalem constituted a governing body, “those being viewed as something/the outstanding men” must refer to the members of the governing body. Paul’s words show that he neither looks down on those who others viewed as “outstanding men” nor that he looks up to them. And then follow an important expression that, according to NWT84, reads: “those outstanding men imparted nothing new.”  The verb prostithemi means “to add something to an existing quantity,” according to Louw and Nida. The implied object in the clause must be Paul. So, the outstanding men did not add anything to Paul.

Galtians 2:7 starts with the words, “But, on the contrary.” The outstanding men did not add anything to Paul because that was not necessary. Paul had already received the powers from Jesus Christ to be a preacher to the nations, as verses 8 and 9 show. And when James, Kephas, and John, who were pillars — real outstanding Christians — realized the undeserved kindness that was given to Paul by Jesus, they gave Paul and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship” (NIV). This means that they accepted that Paul was appointed to preach to the people of the nations.

The study note to 2:7 says: “The governing body in Jerusalem agreed that Paul had been entrusted with a ministry focusing on non-Jews.” But these words are false because the points are:

• If a governing body existed, the reference “the outstanding men” must refer to the members of this body. But the last part of verse 6 says that “the outstanding men “imparted nothing new” or added anything to Paul.
• The authority and the power of Paul to preach to the nations did not come from any man but from Jesus Christ himself.
• “The outstanding men” did not “give Paul “the right hand of fellowship” and by this agreed that Paul had been entrusted with the ministry to non-Jews. But this was done by the three pillars James (who was not an apostle), Kephas, and John.

There can be no doubt that Paul’s words in Galatians chapter 2 about the meeting in Jerusalem in 49 CE contradict the claim that there was a governing body in Jerusalem. It was three experienced Christians who “gave the right hand of fellowship” and not a group called “the governing body.”

The Watchtower of August 1. 1974, page 472 wrote: Holding to the Scriptures, neither minimizing what they say nor reading into them something they do not say, will enable us to keep a balanced view toward disfellowshipped ones. The study notes to Acts 15:2, 21:18, and Galatians 2:7 regarding the governing body in the online NWT13 read into the Scriptures something they do not say. As a result, readers are misled.

HOW THE MEMBERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES MADE THEIR DECISIONS BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY WAS CREATED

When Jesus said that the good news of the Kingdom should be preached to a witness for the inhabited earth (Matthew 24:14), he implied that there should be a Christian community or a Christian organization worldwide. In a large organization that is going to preach to all nations, there must be leaders, and these leaders must make some decisions binding on all members and others that are non-binding.

Binding decisions relate to different parts of the organization, the organization of preaching campaigns, the program for meetings and assemblies, and other aspects of how the organization functions. No leader has the right to make binding decisions regarding the life and faith of the Christian members of the organization, for example, make rules for disfellowshipping that are not directly based on the Bible. Only the Christians themselves can make decisions in these areas, decisions that are based on the Bible.

Non-binding decisions are decisions of indicative value, for example, speeches and articles that discuss how to behave as Christians and how to grow to maturity and take on the new personality. In such situations, no rules can be made, but the individual must apply the exhortations as he or she deems fit. With a few exceptions, between 1942, when H.H. Knorr became the president of the Watchtower Society, and until 1971, when the first Governing Body was formed, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses followed what has been described above — their decisions were based on the Bible.

Between 1945 and 1972, when there was no governing body, the decisions of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses were mostly directly based on the Bible.

THE LEADERS OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY WERE NOT THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

After World War II, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses kept a low profile, and the focus was on Jehovah God and King Jesus Christ. This was expressed in a beautiful way in The Watchtower of November 1, 1946, page 330:

The written Word of God, therefore, does not need the addition of traditions which are the private interpretations of men and of religious organizations. It is not on our own authority that we say that the Bible is sufficient without such…

How is this? How is disunity over each one’s individual interpretation of the Holy Scriptures now overcome and avoided? Is it because they are united around a visible human organization or around a visible human leader? The answer is No.

She [the church of the living God, 1Timothy 3:15] is not the teacher of God’s servants and witnesses, but looks to God as the Teacher by Christ Jesus. As it is written for her benefit: “And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah.” (Isa 54:13, A.S.V.; John 6:45). . . .

He gives the proof by fulfilling the Bible and its prophecies and thus providing the official interpretation of it. Then Jehovah’ holy spirit discloses such interpretation in the fulfilled Bible. By accepting such interpretation the true church safeguards herself against private, individual interpretation. . . .

The main point here is not that the leaders of the Watchtower Society, through the publications, were the teachers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But the point was that God is the teacher because he fulfills his own prophecies, and the Bible shows what Christians should believe and how they should live. The reason why those who wrote the articles kept themselves in the background was that the articles were written in a way so their conclusions could be checked against the Bible, and the readers were invited to do this check, just as the Christians in Beroea. (Acts 17:11) Because of this, God and the Bible were the teachers.

THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DID NOT MAKE RULES AND LAWS IN ADDITION TO THE BIBLE

The important principles in the quotation above were also applied to Christian living. Individual Christians should make decisions about their occupations and other daily situations, and the leaders of Jehovah’s Woitnesses should not make these decisions for them, over their heads.

A Witness asked whether the selling of Christmas cards and Christmas trees was right, and The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, answered:

The Watchtower Society is organized for the purpose of preaching the good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all nations, and it encourages and aids all to have a part in that work, freely advising as to the most effective procedures. As to other forms of activity or work the Society has no specific recommendation to make. To draw up rules for all the possible situations relative to secular work would embark us upon the compilation of a voluminous, Talmudlike set of regulations, seeking to make all the fine distinctions as to when and when not certain work becomes objectionable. The Lord has not laid that responsibility upon the Society; it is each individual’s responsibility to decide his own case. To illustrate the problem involved, consider the matter of selling Christmas cards or trees. If that is wrong, then what about the butcher that sells a turkey for a Christmas dinner, or the saleslady that sells a sweater to be used as a Christmas present? Where is the line to be drawn? Or, when does work become defense work? You do not have to be working on a tank assembly line to be making items used in warfare…

The Society’s silence on these matters is not to be viewed as giving consent, nor is it to be viewed as a condemnation we do not wish to openly express. It means that we think it is the individual’s responsibility to choose, not ours. It is his conscience that must be at ease for his course, not ours… So let each one accept his own responsibility and answer to his own conscience, not criticizing others or being criticized by them, when individual consciences allow different decisions on the same matter.

Today, a Witness who was selling Christmas trees and Christmas cards would be disfellowshipped. But in 1951, he or she could do that without any problems if his or her conscience allowed it. Today, a person who is working for a gambling enterprise will be disfellowshipped. But in 1954, he or she could do that without being punished for it, as The Watchtower of February 1, 1954, page 94, says:

Gambling appeals to selfishness and weakens moral fiber; it tempts many into habits of cheating and crookedness… Can a Christian be employed in a gambling enterprise that is legally recognized and allowed? He may think that he can do so if he refrains from gambling himself or allowing his spiritual brothers to gamble through his services. One may be able to conscientiously do this, while another would not be able to do so in good conscience. Each one will have to decide individually whether he can or cannot do so conscientiously. It is doubtless preferable to be separate from the atmosphere surrounding such activities, and the Christian may wisely arrange to make a change in his occupation. It is a matter each one must decide for himself and in accord with his circumstances and conscience. The Watch Tower Society does not decide as to an individual’s employment, as we previously stated in the September 15, 1951, Watchtower, page 574.[1]

The quotations above show that Christian freedom prevailed among Jehovah’s Witnesses in the years before the creation of the Governing Body in 1971.

EACH WITNESS SHOULD MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON HIS OR HER CONSCIENCE

The freedom to make personal decisions about one’s occupation and way of life continued until the early 1970s. This is shown by an article in The Watchtower, written one year after the Governing Body was created and the same year the elder arrangement was implemented. We read in The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589:

DIFFICULT DECISIONS OF CONSCIENCE

⁹ Thus there are many, many acts and practices that are specifically approved or condemned in the Bible. Many, many others are clearly in harmony with, or in violation of, principles contained therein. Yet, particularly in the modern, complex society that has developed in many parts of the earth, there remain situations and circumstances where personal decision, based on the individual conscience of the one involved, is required. So many things in life are a matter of degree. The difference between a gentle pat and a vicious blow is a matter of degree of force. The difference between simple respect​—as, for example, respect to a ruler or a national emblem—​and reverential worship is also a matter of degree. Where extremes are involved there is no real question. It is when the matter comes within what might be called a ‘gray area,’ approaching the borderline between what is clearly right and what is clearly wrong, that questions arise. The closer to such ‘borderline situation’ the matter comes, the greater the part the individual’s conscience must play in his decision. Faced with such circumstances, what should we do?

¹⁰ Jehovah God expects us to use our faculties of intelligence, our knowledge, understanding and judgment, and to do conscientiously what our faith points us to do. God does not place us under the conscience of some other human in such matters. We must each make our own decision in harmony with conscience​—conscience molded by God’s Word. We must also take the consequences of our own decisions, not expect someone else to make the decision and bear that responsibility for us.

¹¹ It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so. God in his wisdom allows us to show what we are in the “secret person of the heart,” and the decisions we make in such personal cases may reveal this. True, we may err at times without wrong motive, and God, who reads our hearts, can discern this. (my bold script)

The three quotations above show that for 30 years, from 1942, the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses had full Christian freedom. The leaders would not make rules and laws in addition to the Bible that individual Witnesses had to follow. Each Witness would make personal decisions in all areas of life, and others had no right to criticize these decisions.

The article from 1951, which is quoted above, says that if the leaders of The Watchtower Society should make rules for different kinds of work, they had to make “a compilation of a voluminous, Talmudlike set of regulations.” After 1972, this is exactly what the members of the Governing Body have done, not only for different kinds of work but also for all aspects of the Witnesses’ daily life. These Talmudlike sets of regulations are found in the book for elders Shepherd The Flock Of God (2025) and the book for branch committees Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence.  These books will be discussed below.

[1]. A detailed discussion on how the view of gambling has changed is found in my article “Gambling — changed viewpoints and subjective judgments.” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/03/28/gambling-changed-viewpoints-and-subjective-judgments-2/

HOW THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY MADE THEIR DECISIONS IN THE 197Os AND 1980s

Those who are not members of the Governing Body have no way of knowing what happens at Governing Body meetings. However, Raymond Franz was a member of the Governing Body for nine years before he left the organization, and he has written the books Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom, dealing with the organization and the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he gives several reports of what happened at the meetings of the Governing Body.

The books of Franz, particularly In Search for Christian Freedom, are very critical of Jehovah’s Witnesses, so the question is whether we can trust the historical information Franz gives in his books. I have written a review of his two books, “My Beloved Religion and Raymond Franz,” on my website, and I strongly criticize the way he uses the Bible and his many criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the books.[1]

However, I have no reason to doubt that the information he gives about factual events is incorrect. He made notes of what happened, and it is likely that he filled in the missing information from his memory. This means that we have good reasons to believe the accounts he presents of factual events. But some details may be incorrect because his memory is faulty.

In what follows, I will make some long quotations from Crisis of Conscience about the work of the Governing Body, and I assume that these quotations are basically correct.

THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY WERE SO BUSY THAT THEY HAD LITTLE TIME FOR BIBLE STUDY

Two years after the Governing Body was created, I asked a brother who had been at the Gilead school in New York how the Governing Body members made their decisions. He told me that when a subject was considered, a member of the Governing Body or the Writing Department first conducted a detailed study of it. A copy of the study was given to each member of the Governing Body so they could study it and compare it with the Bible. The subject was discussed at one or more Governing Body meetings before a decision was made. I was also told that a study with a new understanding of a biblical subject could circulate among the members of the Governing Body and the Writing Department for several months before the Governing Body made a decision regarding this subject. Following this procedure would certainly lend legitimacy to the Governing Body’s final decision. Unfortunately, the mentioned procedure was not followed, and Franz told that the Governing Body’s decisions are often made on a very weak foundation. This is shown by the quotation from Crisis of Conscience, pages 111, 112:

Most of Jehovah’s Witnesses envision Governing Body sessions as meetings of men who spend a great amount of their time in intense study of God’s Word. They think of them as meeting together to consider humbly how they can better help their brothers understand the Scriptures, to discuss constructive and positive ways to build them up in faith and love, the qualities that motivate genuine Christian works, doing all this in sessions where Scripture is always appealed to as the only valid and final and supreme authority.

Since all Governing Body sessions are completely private, only its members are witnesses of what actually occurs in those sessions. As has been noted, the Governing Body members, better than anyone, knew that the Watchtower articles describing the relationship between the corporation and the Governing Body presented a picture that did not accord with reality. So, too, members of the Governing Body know, better than anyone else, that the picture described in the preceding paragraph differs measurably from reality. I spent nine years on the Governing Body. Going over the records of meeting after meeting after meeting, the most prominent, constant and time-occupying feature found is the discussion of issues ultimately coming down to this question: “Is it a disfellowshiping matter?”

I would liken the Governing Body (and in my mind I often did) to a group of men backed up against a wall with numerous persons tossing balls at them for them to catch and throw back. The balls came so frequently and in such number that there was little time for anything else. Indeed, it seemed that every disfellowshiping ruling made and sent out only brought additional questions thrown at us from new angles, leaving little time for thought, study, discussion and action of a truly positive, constructive nature.

Over the years I sat through many, many sessions where issues that could seriously affect the lives of people were discussed, yet where the Bible did not come into the hands or even on the lips of practically any of those participating. There were reasons, a combination of reasons, for this.

Many Governing Body members admitted that they found themselves so occupied with various matters that there was little time for Bible study. It is no exaggeration to say that the average member spent no more time, and sometimes less, in such study than many Witnesses among the so-called “rank and file.” Some of those on the Publishing Committee (which included the officers and directors of the Pennsylvania corporation) were notable in this regard, for a tremendous amount of paperwork came their way and they evidently felt that they could not or should not delegate this to anyone else to review and present conclusions or recommendations.

On the few occasions when some purely Scriptural discussion was programmed it was generally to discuss an article or articles for the Watchtower that an individual had prepared and to which there was some objection. In these cases it regularly occurred that, even though notified a week or two in advance of the matter, Milton Henschel, Grant Suiter or another member of this Committee felt obliged to say, “I only had time to look this over briefly, I’ve been so busy.”

There was no reason to doubt that they were truly busy. The question that came to mind was, How then can they vote in good conscience on approval of the material when they have not been able to meditate on it, search the Scriptures to test it out? Once published it was to be viewed as “truth” by millions of people. What paperwork could equal this in importance? (my bold script)

That the members of the Governing Body were very busy with different non-biblical projects and had little time for spiritual matters accords with observations made by brothers who worked together with these members in the 1980s and 1990s. But there are exceptions, such as Fred Franz, a scholar with extensive knowledge of the Bible and the original Bible languages.

Different committees of helpers to the Governing Body were created on January 1, 1976, to take some of the workload away from the members of the Governing Body. But the situation Franz describes lasted at least until 1980, when he left Brooklyn Bethel.

The question, “Is it a disfellowshipping matter,” which was so often discussed, shows how the Bible was placed in the background. Such a question should never have been asked because the Bible has 11 disfellowshipping offenses, and humans should not add other disfellowshipping offenses that would contradict the Bible. Relatively few disfellowshipping offenses were added in the 1970s and 1980s. But today, 37 disfellowshipping offenses have been added to the 11 found in the Bible.[2]

THE BIBLE WAS RARELY USED AT GOVERNING BODY MEETINGS BECAUSE MOST DECISION WERE RELATED TO ISSUES NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE

Franz was rightly concerned about the limited role the Bible played in the Governing Body’s discussions. And he gives the following reasons for this on pages 113, 114:

A second reason for lack of real Bible discussion, follows obviously, I believe, from the preceding one. And that is that most of the Body were actually not that well versed in the Scriptures, for their “busyness” was not something of recent origin. In my own case, right up until 1965 I had been on such a “treadmill” of activity that I had found little time for truly serious study. But I think the matter goes deeper than that. I believe that the feeling prevailed that such study and research were really not all that essential, that the policies and teachings of the organization—developed over many decades—were a reliable guide in themselves, so that, whatever motion might be made in the Body, as long as it conformed satisfactorily to such traditional policy or teaching, it must be all right.

The facts point to this conclusion. At times a long discussion on some “disfellowshiping” issue would suddenly be resolved because one member had found a statement related to the matter in the Society’s Organization book, or, more likely, in the book called “Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence,” a compendium of policies arranged alphabetically on a broad range of subjects—employment, marriage, divorce, politics, military matters, labor unions, blood and scores of others. When such statement was found, even though no Scripture was cited in support of the particular point of policy, this seemed to settle the matter for most of the Body members and they would usually vote without hesitation in favor of any motion that conformed to the printed policy. I saw this happen on several occasions and I never ceased to be impressed by the way that kind of printed policy statement could affect such a sudden transformation in the progress and resolution of a discussion.

A final reason for the Bible’s playing little part in such discussion is that in case after case the issue involved something on which the Scriptures themselves were silent. To cite specific examples, the discussion might be to decide whether the injection of serums should be viewed the same as blood transfusions, or whether platelets should be considered just as objectionable for acceptance as packed red blood cells. Or the discussion might center on the policy that a wife who committed one act of unfaithfulness was obliged to confess this to her husband (even though he was known to be extremely violent in nature) or else her claim of repentance would not be considered valid, leaving her liable for disfellowshiping. What scriptures discuss such matters?

What is particularly important, in Franz’s words, is that most of the questions discussed at the Governing Body meetings concerned areas where the Bible was silent. Therefore, the Bible could not be used in connection with these questions.

From 1971 to 1975, all Governing Body decisions had to be unanimous. But from 1975 onward, decisions would be made by a two-thirds majority. Franz says there was often much disagreement among the members of the Governing Body. And he shows that the two-thirds-majority rule could create problems for individual Witnesses, as we read on pages 115-117:

A major factor in Governing Body decisions was the two-thirds majority rule. This produced some strange effects at times.

The rule was that a two-thirds majority (of the total active membership) was needed to carry a motion. I personally appreciated the opportunity this allowed for a member to vote differently from the majority or simply to abstain without feeling that he was, in effect, exercising ‘‘veto power.” On minor matters, even when not in complete agreement, I generally voted with the majority. But when issues came up that genuinely affected my conscience I frequently found myself in the minority—seldom alone but often with only one, two or three other members expressing conscientious objection by not voting for the motion. This was not so often the case during the first two years or so after the major change effected in the authority structure (officially put in motion on January 1, 1976). In the final two years [1978-1980] of my membership, however, a strong trend toward a “hard line” approach obliged me either to vote differently from the majority—or to abstain—with greater frequency.

But consider now what sometimes happened when the Body was quite divided in its viewpoint, not nearly so uncommon an occurrence as some might think.

An issue might be under discussion involving conduct that had, somewhere in the Society’s past, been designated a “disfellowshiping offense,” perhaps a person’s having a particular blood fraction injected to control a potentially fatal ailment; or possibly the case of a wife who had a non-Witness husband in military service and who worked in a commissary on her husband’s military base.

At times in such discussions the Body might be quite divided, sometimes even split right down the middle. Or there might be a majority who favored removing the particular action, conduct or type. of employment from the “disfellowshiping offense” category. Consider what might happen because of the two-thirds majority rule:

If out of fourteen members present, nine favored removing the disfellowshiping offense “label” and only five favored retaining it, the majority was not sufficient to change the disfellowshiping label. Though a clear majority, the nine were not a two-thirds majority. (Even if there were ten of them favoring change this was still not enough, for though they would be two-thirds majority of the fourteen present, the rule was two-thirds majority of the total active membership, which during much of the time was seventeen.) If someone from the nine favoring removal of the disfellowshiping category advanced a motion it would fail, because twelve votes were needed for it to pass. If someone from the five favoring retention of the disfellowshiping offense category advanced a motion that the policy be maintained, the motion would, of course, fail also. But even the failure of the motion in favor of retaining the category would not result in the removal of that disfellowshiping category. Why not? Because the policy was that some motion had to carry before any change would be made in previous policy. In one of the first of these instances of such a divided vote, Milton Henschel had expressed the view that, where there was no two-thirds majority, then “status quo should prevail,” nothing should change. It was quite uncommon in these cases for any member to change over on his vote and so a stalemate usually resulted. (italics in the original)

That meant that the Witness taking the particular action or having the particular employment involved would continue to be subject to disfellowshiping, even though a majority of the Body had made clear their feeling that he or she should not be!

On more than one occasion when a sizeable minority or even a majority (though not two-thirds) felt that a matter should not be a disfellowshiping offense, I voiced my feelings that our position was unreasonable, even incomprehensible. How could we let things go on as before, with people being disfellowshiped for such things, when right within the Governing Body there were a number of us, sometimes a majority, who felt that the action involved did not merit such severe judgment? How would the brothers and sisters feel to know that this was the case and yet they were being disfellowshiped?

To illustrate, if five congregational elders forming a “judicial committee” were to hear a case and three of the five did not believe that the person’s action or conduct called for disfellowshiping, would the fact that they were only a three-fifths majority and not a two-thirds majority make their position invalid? Would the person then be disfellowshiped? Surely not. How could we, then, let a mere procedural rule of voting cause a traditional stand on disfellowshiping to prevail when most of the Body members felt otherwise? Should we not at least take the position that, in all disfellowshiping matters, when even a considerable minority (and especially a majority, however small) felt that there were not sufficient grounds for disfellowshiping, then no disfellowshiping ruling should be sustained? (italics in the original)

These questions put to the Body brought no response, but again and again in such cases the previously-established traditional policy was kept in force, and this was done as a matter of course, as normal. The effect on people’s lives somehow did not carry enough weight to make the members feel moved to set aside their “standard” policy in such cases. Somewhere in the past history of the organization a disfellowshiping policy had been formulated (often the product of one man’s thinking, a man all too often pathetically isolated from the circumstances being dealt with) and that policy had been put into effect; a rule had been adopted and that rule controlled unless a two-thirds majority could overturn it.

In all these controversial cases the “disfellowshiping offense” was not something clearly identified in Scripture as sinful. It was purely the result of organizational policy. Once published, that policy became fixed on the worldwide brotherhood for them to bear, along with the consequences of the policy. Is it wrong in such circumstances to feel that Jesus’ words apply: “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them”? I leave that to the reader to decide. I only know what my conscience told me and the stand I felt compelled to take.  (my bold script)

The observations of Franz show that the works of the members of the Governing Body are very far from the ideal we learn, that they are men who spend a great amount of their time in intense study of God’s Word, and that they use their great knowledge of the Bible in their discussions to the best of individual Witnesses.

What we learn from Franz is that most of the subjects discussed at the Governing Body meetings were not found in the Bible. And one subject that often came up in the discussions was whether a particular action was a disfellowshipping offense or not.

Supporting the presentation of Franz are the books for elders Shepherd The Flock Of God and for branch committees Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence.  The contents of this last-mentioned book are listed in In Search of Christian Freedom. pages 242-245.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of this first part of the study of the implementation of the elder arrangement and the creation of the Governing Body is that from the end of World War II in 1945, and until 1981 individual Witnesses had full Christian freedom. The high point of Christian freedom occurred in 1972 when the elder arrangement was introduced. And while it was slowly curtailed starting in 1976, we must conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses had Christian freedom for the most part of the 20th century.

[1]. https://mybelovedreligion.no/2021/11/14/my-beloved-religion-and-raymond-franz/

[2]. See chapter 5 in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition.

OVERSKRIFT 3

Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.

CONCLUSION

Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.