Posted by Rick [Rick] on October 30, 1999 at 21:24:12 {G0PnT/qYmk7mY4XD8K2cFMFBt36Xyc}:
Dear Brother, I have been delaying this reply because I was in agreement with your words and sentiments. Therefore it seemed rather trite to respond with simply a thanks for your email, that I agree and appreciate your encouragement, and so forth. That's the problem with this form of non-direct communication, that when we agree with someone then we are at a loss of words.
First, you said "Yes, I agree with you. For example, in order to make significant changes in the policy regarding blood transfusions, we would have to completely abandon our very premise that Acts 15 means total abstention, including modern day medical procedures."
I can add that when a decree to abstain from something is practiced by erring on the side of caution, with grave difficulty and even loss of life, then moving in the kinder direction of balance is always treated with suspicion. The primary suspicion is that any proposal to abandon a teaching which requires personal hardship to practice is done solely to alleviate the discomfort or burden it causes. We are taught in the Bible repeatedly that abstaining from physical needs is not the way to please God. Even the Watchtower has warned that abstaining from something simply to prove loyalty and love for God is not the way to please God. Suppose I wanted to prove to God that I really loved him, so I agreed to fast for six months, and I ended up in the hospital on intravenous life support after almost starving? Would God be pleased at my abstaining from food to the point of starvation a worthy sacrifice, because most people simply would not be willing to suffer in this manner? Obviously I don't need to elaborate or explain further, as the answer is quite obvious.
The blood issue, in like manner, involves a correct understanding of the word abstain. Is the word abstain a form of abstinence, or is it not the real issue our abstaining from using blood -- which is symblic of life -- in a manner that disrespects what blood represents? In other words, shouldn't we abstain from using blood in a manner that disrespects life?
Suppose I was in the desert and had a flask of water, and we were about to perish from dehydration, and I poured that flask of water on the ground as a sacrifice to an idol or god? I would be disrespecting LIFE. In a sense, one could say that in that situation, the water in the flask represented life. My obligation would be to abstain from using it in a manner that did not serve the most important purpose at the moment. At the moment, standing out there in the hot desert sands, what is the most precious thing at stake? LIFE. The supplies, resources, camels, food, everything that can SUSTAIN LIFE is "sacred" -- and in essence is symbolic of life during that period of time -- because using these resources would honor the most precious gift God had created life.
I'll respond further as I can think of things you mentioned in your letter that I can elaborate upon. Stay strong and remember, you have in your hands the gift of helping millions to draw closer to Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ. They deserve to find the peace of knowing there is a wonderful future in store for mankind, and that living starts now in the present where we find Christ's yoke is not burdened with the artifacts of human reasoning leading to oppressive regulations and guilt. Rather for all intensive purposes, there is no yoke. The yoke vanished with the mosaic law. We simply follow Christ because otherwise we're lost in the wilderness.
More later. I found your email upbuilding and would appreciate any other thoughts. Take care.
Rick